Hire 💕 8617370543 Amethi Call Girls Service Call Girls Agency
Comparing tactical behaviour of soccer players in 3 vs. 3 and 6vs. 6 in small sided-games
1. Journal of Human Kinetics volume 41/2014, 191-202 DOI: 10.2478/hukin-2014-0047 191
Section III – Sports Training
1 - Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, PORTUGAL.
2 - Centre of Research and Studies in Soccer - Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, MG - BRAZIL.
Authors submitted their contribution of the article to the editorial board.
Accepted for printing in Journal of Human Kinetics vol. 41/2014 on June 2014.
Comparing Tactical Behaviour of Soccer Players in 3 vs. 3 and 6
vs. 6 Small-Sided Games
by
Bernardo Silva1, Júlio Garganta1, Rodrigo Santos2, Israel Teoldo2
The present study aimed to compare players' tactical behaviour in 3 vs. 3 and 6 vs. 6 soccer small-sided games
(SSGs). The sample comprised 3,482 tactical actions performed by 18 U-11 youth soccer players from a Portuguese
club, in 3 vs. 3 and 6 vs. 6 SSGs. All participants played eight minutes in both situations and field size was adapted
according to the number of players involved (30 m x 19.5 m for 3 vs. 3 and 60 m x 39 m for 6 vs. 6). The System of
Tactical Assessment in Soccer (FUT-SAT) was used for data collection and analyses. Descriptive analysis was
conducted to verify frequencies and percentages of the variables assessed. The chi-squared (χ2) test was performed to
compare the frequencies of the variables between 3 vs. 3 and 6 vs. 6 SSGs and Standardized Residuals (e) were used to
examine the influence of the frequency of one or more variables within 3 vs. 3 and 6 vs. 6 SSGs. Data treatment was
performed through SPSS for Windows®, version 18.0. Results indicated that players displayed safer behaviours in 6 vs.
6 SSG and more aggressive behaviours in 3 vs. 3 SSG. Findings can aid coaches and teachers to develop different
players' tactical skills according to the chosen SSG (3 vs. 3 or 6 vs. 6) form.
Key words: Soccer, tactical assessment, tactical behaviour, small-sided games.
Introduction
The study of team sports through the observation
of behaviour patterns of players and teams is not
recent, having occurred alongside with the
constraints of expertise (Garganta, 2001). In
soccer, as well as in other team sports, tactical
behaviour can be defined as the sequences of
actions performed by players aiming to deal, by
the most appropriate means, with match
situations, considering the constraints of time,
space and task (Boulogne, 1972). Accordingly, the
analysis of tactical behaviour should not be solely
based on a particular action performed in
isolation, but rather on general tactical patterns,
which comprise all the typical characteristics of
such isolated actions performed by all players
within a team (Mahlo, 1969).
In this respect, tactical behaviour analyses
in soccer have been conducted in recent years
with the purpose of verifying to what extent this
variable could be affected by other elements
(Sampaio and Maçãs, 2012). Some researchers
aimed to examine the association between tactical
behaviour and contextual variables (i.e. match
location, positional demands, match status and
substitutions) or psychological features (i.e.
motivation), and verified that players’ behaviour
is likely to be influenced by these constraints to
some point (Lago-Peñas, 2009; Myers, 2012;
Shafizadeh and Gray, 2011; Taylor et al., 2004;
Taylor et al., 2008). Other authors addressed the
subject from the perspective of the impact that
relative age effect (RAE) and changes in playing
area might exert, with the role of RAE proving to
be rather ineffective, while the increase or
decrease of field size demonstrated that tactical
behaviour patterns might undergo modifications
according to spatial constraints (Dellal et al.,
2011a; Teoldo et al., 2010b). While all the above-
2. 192 Tactical behaviour in 3 vs. 3 and 6 vs. 6 small-sided games
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 41/2014 http://www.johk.pl
mentioned studies have been conducted in order
to enhance general knowledge of tactical
behaviour, there seems to be a lack of further
research in this topic from the perspective of
small-sided games (SSGs) and the variations in
their structure, specially those regarding the
number of players (Aguiar et al., 2012).
Youth soccer players have the need to
foster numerous motor abilities as well as
technical and tactical skills in order to attain
higher levels of performance. Such development
is dependent on exercise intensity and also on
activities that enable players to communicate with
each other and experience appropriate time in
contact with the ball (Reilly, 2005; Silva et al.,
2011). In order to attain all these goals, coaches
rely on the use of small-sided games (SSGs)
within the training process, since these structures
seem to involve the necessary constraints to
provide players with sufficient stimuli for the
improvement of their performances (Almeida et
al., 2013; Casamichana et al., 2012). Apparently,
only a limited number of research has focused on
the effects of modifications in SSGs over players’
tactical behaviour and more investigation appears
to be necessary to enhance the current knowledge
over this subject (Teoldo et al., 2010a; Teoldo et
al., 2010b).
Therefore, the aim of this study was to
compare players' tactical behaviour in 3 vs. 3 and
6 vs. 6 soccer small-sided games (SSGs)..
Material and Methods
Sample and Participants
The sample comprised 3,482 tactical
actions performed by 18 U-11 youth soccer
players from a Portuguese club, in 3 vs. 3 and 6
vs. 6 small-sided games (SSGs). Players
performed 1,787 actions in the 3 vs. 3 situation
and 1,695 in 6 vs. 6. The actions in which players
performed throw-ins, free kicks, corner-kicks, as
well as those, in which they did not perform any
tactical actions, were not considered for
assessment.
The club signed a Statement of
Authorization, allowing researchers to test the
players of the corresponding academy level as
well as to utilize its facilities for the conduction of
the tests. Parents or guardians signed a written
informed consent form, authorizing players to
take part in the research.
This research had the approval of the
Ethics Committee from the University of Porto,
Portugal (CEFADE 15/2013) and meets the
standards of the Declaration of Helsinki for
research with human beings (1996).
Procedures
Data were collected with the permission
of club’s representatives. Players were informed
about the objectives of the research and also about
the purposes of the tests they were about to
perform. Players did not attend training sessions
on test days to avoid physical and cognitive
strain, which could affect their performance
during the tests. All participants played during
eight minutes in both situations (3 vs. 3 and 6 vs.
6). Playing area was adapted according to the
number of players involved, and in the 3 vs. 3
field size was 30 m long and 19.5 m wide, while in
the 6 vs. 6 it was 60 m long and 39 m wide. In the
3 vs. 3, players were distributed in teams of three
players plus a goalkeeper (GK+3 vs. 3+GK), while
in the 6 vs. 6 the distribution consisted of six
players for each team plus a goalkeeper (GK+6 vs.
6+GK). Actions performed by goalkeepers were
not assessed or considered for analysis. Prior to
the start of each test session, players were
informed about the objectives of such tests and
were given 30 seconds in order to familiarize with
test procedures. All players wore numbered vests
in order to be easily identified during video
analysis.
Instrument
We used the System of Tactical
Assessment in Soccer (FUT-SAT) (Teoldo et al.,
2011a; Teoldo et al., 2010b), which enables the
assessment of tactical actions performed by
players with and without ball possession. Such
assessment is based on ten core tactical principles
of soccer with five offensive principles - (i)
Penetration; (ii) Offensive Coverage; (iii) Width
and Length; (iv) Depth Mobility; (v) Offensive
Unity - and five defensive principles - (vi) Delay;
(vii) Defensive Coverage; (viii) Balance; (ix)
Concentration; (x) Defensive Unity (Teoldo et al.,
2009; Worthington, 1974). FUT-SAT comprises
two Macro-Categories, seven categories and 76
variables that are organized according to the type
of information dealt with by the system (Chart 1).
The Macro-Category "Observation" involves three
categories and 24 variables: the category "Tactical
4. 194 Tactical behaviour in 3 vs. 3 and 6 vs. 6 small-sided games
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 41/2014 http://www.johk.pl
Chart 1
Definitions, categories and sub-categories of variables assessed by FUT-SAT
Categories Sub-Categories Variables Definitions
Tactical
Principles
Offensive
Penetration Movement of player with the ball towards the goal line.
Offensive Coverage Offensive supports to the player with the ball.
Depth Mobility
Movement of players between the last defender and goal
line.
Width and Length
Movement of players to extend and use the effective play-
space.
Offensive Unity
Movement of the last line of defenders towards the
offensive midfield, in order to support offensive actions of
the teammates.
Defensive
Delay
Actions to slow down the opponent's attempt to move
forward with the ball.
Defensive Coverage
Positioning of off-ball defenders behind the “delay” player,
providing defensive support.
Balance
Positioning of off-ball defenders in reaction to movements
of attackers, trying to achieve the numerical stability or
superiority in the opposition relationship.
Concentration
Positioning of off-ball defenders to occupy vital spaces and
protect the scoring area.
Defensive Unity
Positioning of off-ball defenders to reduce the effective
play-space of the opponents.
Place of Action
Offensive
Midfield
Offensive Actions Offensive actions performed in the offensive midfield.
Defensive Actions Defensive actions performed in the offensive midfield.
Defensive
Midfield
Offensive Actions Offensive actions performed in the defensive midfield.
Defensive Actions Defensive actions performed in the defensive midfield.
Action
Outcome
Offensive
Shoot at goal
When a player shoots at goal, and (a) scores a goal, (b) the
goalkeeper makes a save, (c) the ball touches one of the
goalposts or the crossbar.
Keep possession of the
ball
When team players execute passes to each other and keep
up with the ball.
Earn a foul, win a corner
or throw-in
When the match is stopped due to a foul, corner or throw-
in; the team that was attacking KEEPS possession of the ball.
Commit a foul, give away
a corner or throw in
When the match is stopped due to a foul, corner or throw-
in; the possession of the ball CHANGES to the team that
was in defence.
Loss of ball possession When the attacking team loses the ball possession.
Defensive
Regain the ball possession When the defensive players regain the ball possession.
Earn a foul, win a corner
or throw-in
When the match is stopped due to a foul, corner or throw-in
and the possession of the ball CHANGES to the team that
was in defence.
Commit a foul, give away
a corner or throw in
When the match is stopped due to a foul, corner or throw-
in; the team that was attacking KEEPS possession of the ball.
Ball possession of the
opponent
When the defensive players do not regain the ball
possession.
Take a shot at own goal
When the defensive team takes a shot at their own goal, and
(a) takes a goal, (b) the goalkeeper makes a save, (c) the ball
touches one of the goalposts or the crossbar.
8. 198 Tactical behaviour in 3 vs. 3 and 6 vs. 6 small-sided games
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 41/2014 http://www.johk.pl
Figure 2
Graphical representation of standardized residuals of variables of 3 vs. 3 SSGs
Figure 3
Graphical representation of standardized residuals of variables of 6 vs. 6 SSGs
10. 200 Tactical behaviour in 3 vs. 3 and 6 vs. 6 small-sided games
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 41/2014 http://www.johk.pl
safer behaviour in defense, especially considering
the actions of Balance, that indicate that 6 vs. 6
SSGs enable players to stay closer to the centre of
play and at the same time to safeguard their own
defensive midfield by having more time for
decision-making, due to increased field
dimensions, that probably forced opponents to
cover greater distances in attack (Little and
Williams, 2007).
Considering the location on the field
where tactical actions took place, results
demonstrated that defensive actions in the
offensive midfield occurred significantly more
often in the 3 vs. 3 than in 6 vs. 6 SSGs, implying
that in 3 vs. 3 players appear to have a more
aggressive approach when not in possession, by
performing actions that aim at the recovery of the
ball in the opponent's half (Silva et al., 2011). This
behaviour can be possibly related to the reduced
field size, which might have helped the defensive
team in limiting the space and time available for
the opponent to progress with the ball, thus
promoting more changes of ball possession
among opposite players in their own defensive
midfield (Teoldo et al., 2011b).
Taking into account the outcomes of the
tactical actions assessed, the most significant
results in the offensive phase concern the
variables “Shoot at goal” (ω=0.472) and “Commit
a foul, give away a corner or throw-in” (ω=0.520),
that displayed significantly higher frequency
values in the 3 vs. 3 compared to 6 vs. 6 SSGs.
This indicates that when players are in possession,
actions are more likely to end in a goal attempt or
in loss of ball possession through a foul, corner-
kick or throw-in, thus providing the opponent
with the opportunity to restart the game through
a set play. Equally, in defensive phase, 3 vs. 3
SSGs displayed a higher frequency of the variable
“Commit a foul, give away a corner or throw-in”
(ω=0.443) and “Earn a foul, win a corner or throw-
in” (ω=0.333), what implies that defensive
sequences also tend to end up in fouls, corners or
throw-ins. Such results allow us to infer that when
space is limited (as in 3 vs. 3 SSGs), the game
requires players to act more quickly, due to the
constraints related to the limited playing area.
Therefore, in the offensive phase, whenever
actions did not end in a goal attempt, teams which
performed such actions and lost possession
subsequently, possibly played more assertive
defensive styles, that involve trying to recover the
ball as quickly as possible, what might have
caused more fouls, due to this more aggressive
approach (Dellal et al., 2012).
Regarding players’ behaviours within
each of the situations (3 vs. 3 and 6 vs. 6 SSGs), the
main differences between them are related to the
categories "Place of Action on the Playing Field"
and "Action Outcome". Within the category "Place
of Action on the Playing Field", defensive tactical
actions performed in the defensive and in the
offensive midfield did not reveal any significant
difference in the 3 vs. 3 situation. Conversely,
defensive actions performed in the defensive
midfield were significantly more frequent (e=3.48)
than defensive actions performed in the offensive
midfield (e=-3.48), what suggests that when more
players are involved and field size is larger (as in
6 vs. 6 SSGs), players tend to opt for defensive
behaviours that involve marking the opposing
team in their own defensive half, thus revealing
certain insecurity in marking higher on the field
and providing the opposition with space behind
the defensive line. The category "Action Outcome"
also exhibited substantial results, as the variable
"Commit a foul, give away a corner or throw-in"
proved to be significantly more frequent than the
other variables within the same category only in
the 3 vs. 3 SSGs (e=4.44). This finding suggests
that challenges for the ball are probably more
common in the 3 vs. 3 than in 6 vs. 6 SSGs and
corroborates other results within this study that
indicate that players often chose a more
aggressive approach in the 3 vs. 3 and a safer one
in the 6 vs. 6 SSGs (Silva et al., 2011). Therefore,
with respect to this inference, it is reasonable to
assume that in the processes of teaching, learning
and training, coaches should consider increasing
the number of players of SSGs gradually,
respecting the time players seem to take to adapt
to situations involving a larger playing area and
more participants than they are familiarized with
(Jones and Drust, 2007).
Findings within this study can aid
coaches and/or teachers in the sense that the
utilization of either SSGs (3 vs. 3 and 6 vs. 6)
depends on the purpose of each training session
(Köklü, 2012). From the physical/physiological
perspective, SSGs with fewer players (as 3 vs. 3)
and smaller area size would indicate a
predominance of anaerobic metabolism during
12. 202 Tactical behaviour in 3 vs. 3 and 6 vs. 6 small-sided games
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 41/2014 http://www.johk.pl
Little T, Williams AG. Measures of exercise intensity during soccer training drills with professional soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res, 2007; 21: 367-71
Mahlo F. Tactical action in play. Paris: Vigot Freres; 1969
Myers BR. A Proposed Decision Rule for the Timing of Soccer Substitutions. J Quant Anal Sports, 2012; 8: 1-24
O'Donoghue P. Statistics for sport and exercise studies: an introduction. Oxon: Routledge; 2012
Reilly T. An ergonomics model of the soccer training process. J Sports Sci, 2005; 23: 561-72
Robinson G, O'Donoghue P. A weighted kappa statistic for reliability testing in performance analysis of
sport. Int J Perform Anal Sport, 2007; 7: 12-9
Sampaio J, Maçãs V. Measuring Tactical Behaviour in Football. Int J Sports Med, 2012; 33: 395-401
Shafizadeh M, Gray S. Development of a Behavioural Assessment System for Achievement Motivation in
Soccer Matches. J Quant Anal Sports, 2011; 7: 1-13
Silva CD, Impellizzeri FM, Natali AJ, Lima JR, Bara-Filho MG, Garcia ES, Marins JC. Exercise intensity and
technical demands of small-sided games in young Brazilian soccer players: effect of number of
players, maturation, and reliability. J Strength Cond Res, 2011; 25: 2746-51
Tabachnick B, Fidell L. Using Multivariate Statistics: International Edition. 6 ed. London: Pearson Education;
2012
Taylor JB, Mellalieu SD, James N. Behavioural comparisons of positional demands in professional soccer. Int
J Perform Anal Sport, 2004; 4: 81-97
Taylor JB, Mellalieu SD, James N, Shearer DA. The influence of match location, quality of oposition and
match status on technical performance in professional association football. J Sport Sci, 2008; 26: 885-95
Teoldo I, Albuquerque M, Garganta J. Relative age effect in Brazilian soccer players: a historical analysis. Int
J Perform Anal Sport, 2012; 12: 563-70
Teoldo I, Garganta J, Greco PJ, Mesquita I. Tactical Principles of Soccer Game: concepts and application.
Motriz, 2009; 15: 657-68
Teoldo I, Garganta J, Greco PJ, Mesquita I, Afonso J. Assessment of tactical principles in youth soccer players
of different age groups. Rev Port Cien Desp, 2010a; 10: 147-57
Teoldo I, Garganta J, Greco PJ, Mesquita I, Maia J. System of tactical assessment in Soccer (FUT-SAT):
Development and preliminary validation. Motricidade, 2011a; 7: 69-83
Teoldo I, Garganta J, Greco PJ, Mesquita I, Muller E. Relationship between pitch size and tactical behavior of
soccer players. Rev Bras Educ Fís Esporte, 2011b; 25: 79-96
Teoldo I, Garganta J, Greco PJ, Mesquita I, Seabra A. Influence of Relative Age Effects and Quality of Tactical
Behaviour in the Performance of Youth Soccer Players. Int J Perform Anal Sport, 2010b; 10: 82-97
Worthington E. Learning & Teaching Soccer Skills. North Hollywood: Wilshire Book Company; 1974
Corresponding author:
Rodrigo de Miranda Monteiro Santos.
Centre of Research and Studies in Soccer. Departamento de Educação Física, Universidade Federal de
Viçosa. Av. P.H. Rolfs, S/N, Campus Universitário.
36570-000, Viçosa, Brazil.
Phone: +55 (31) 3899-2251